Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division ruled on a number of applications made by the former wife following decisions and orders made in the course of financial remedies proceedings, and a cross-application by the former husband for a civil restraint order. 

Adoption – Practice. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeals of both the father and the local authority, held, among other things, that the prospective adopters ought not to have been joined as parties to the care proceedings. The care judge was concerned at most with consideration of adoption in principle, not with evaluating the merits of particular proposed adopters. There was no need for the prospective adopters to be joined and there was nothing in the status or function of an early permanence placement foster carer which either justified or required any change in the conventional and long-established approach. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the application by Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co., for annulment of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (concerning restrictive measures against Iran) in so far as those acts concerned it. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Family Division struck out an application to commit the respondent to prison for contempt of court, in circumstances where there was a serious defect in the order upon which the application to commit was based, and it was not a situation where the procedural defect could be waived. 

Order – Variation. The Commercial Court ruled that the claimant British Virgin Islands (BVI) company, which had been struck off the register in the BVI, continued to have capacity as a claimant, entitling it to bring proceedings. However, it dismissed the company's application to vary an order, which required the company to give security for the defendants' costs of proceedings concerning an insurance claim where there was no material change of circumstances and where to do so would result in the court substituting its assessment for that which the judge had made. 

Family proceedings – Reporting. The Family Division ruled that the risk of 'jigsaw identification' was not a reason in itself to withhold the publication of a judgment of the Family Court. Accordingly, it held that a family judgment, which had previously been withdrawn from circulation to the public, should be published in its original format, with a reporting restriction order prohibiting the names of the children and their present whereabouts being reported. 

Adoption – Practice. The present proceedings arose out of the adoption of a child who had been born to the claimant. The Family Division, in dismissing the claimant's claims for certain declarations under the Human Rights Act 1998, held, among other things, that the making of an adoption order always brought pre-existing rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as between a birth parent and an adopted child to an end. Those rights had arisen from, and co-existed with, the parent-child relationship, which was extinguished by adoption. 

Costs – Orders for costs. The claimant challenged the order that he pay the defendant Secretary of State her costs of £400 for acknowledgement of service and summary grounds. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, gave guidance on the application of the indemnity principle to the Secretary of State and the Government Legal Department. It then held that there was not the remotest scope for the argument that £200 per hour was an unreasonably high rate. 

Sentence – Sexual offences against children. The defendant renewed his application for leave to appeal against his sentence of seven years' imprisonment for two counts of sexual assault of a child under 13 years and four counts of sexual activity with a child. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, granted permission and allowed the appeal only to the extent of quashing such parts of the order as required payment of a victim surcharge, which had been unlawfully imposed, as the sentence had not included a fine. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 56(1) EC. The request had been made in proceedings brought by F.E. Familienprivatstiftung Eisenstadt (Eisenstadt) against the decision of the Austrian Independent Finance Tribunal, External Section, Vienna, that had refused Eisenstadt the right to have gifts paid to beneficiaries resident in other member states taken account of in calculating a tax to which Eisenstadt had been subject in respect of the 2001 and 2002 assessment periods.